Northern Ireland is "United Kingdom"

*raspberry*

Not sure exactly where in Ireland Guiness originates from, but thats my tenuous justification for adding another tag!

I think we need a *leprachaun channel - jonny earn more starts and I call it yours!

>> ^Octopussy:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^srd:
>> ^RedSky: Guess they would have been a bit hesitant with the news crew there.

Nah, the israeli military has no qualms about censorship or shooting (to kill) reporters.

Yeah, let's bash Israel over a clip about how their checkpoints stop a 14 year-old suicide bomber saving not only civilians, but the poor kid's life as well.

========
Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the checkpoints are there to save disturbed and/or retarded 14-year old Palestinian kids.
And why would Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt be responsible for Palestinian lives? I’ve never seen any other neighbouring countries being blamed for what happened on their doorstep. Where the Netherlands ever blamed for what happened in Northern Ireland, or Switzerland for the millions killed in nazi-occupied Europe?
And please don’t call people ignorant racists just because they disagree with you.


If you don't think Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt have any responsibility to the Palestinian people then you are ignorant. They were the nations that encouraged the Palestinian people to leave their land in the first place. Then after the war, they treated the Palestinian refugees within their borders every bit as poorly as Israel. One of the biggest complaints leveled against Israel is failing to allow aid into Palestine through it's borders, and yet none of the other neighboring nations are allowing aid in either. Unless Syrian munitions count as aid...

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^srd:
>> ^RedSky: Guess they would have been a bit hesitant with the news crew there.

Nah, the israeli military has no qualms about censorship or shooting (to kill) reporters.

Yeah, let's bash Israel over a clip about how their checkpoints stop a 14 year-old suicide bomber saving not only civilians, but the poor kid's life as well.

========

Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the checkpoints are there to save disturbed and/or retarded 14-year old Palestinian kids.

And why would Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt be responsible for Palestinian lives? I’ve never seen any other neighbouring countries being blamed for what happened on their doorstep. Where the Netherlands ever blamed for what happened in Northern Ireland, or Switzerland for the millions killed in nazi-occupied Europe?

And please don’t call people ignorant racists just because they disagree with you.

You don't just decide to not negotiate with an elected democratic government because you view them as extremists from inside your own culture. Nelson Mandella was an extremist, my own country is now governed by people who murdered and planted bombs in the 1970s, in retaliation to British oppression. They are extremists but they are not terrorists.

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

As MP George Galloway has said, a suicide bombing of of a group of Israeli soldiers in illegal occupation of Palestinian lands is an entirely legitimate military act, a suicide bombing of a group of Israeli settlers illegally occupying Palestinian land is an entirely justifiable military action. A suicide bombing of a falafel stall in Tel Aviv is not. A bombing of a nightclub in Haifa is not.

It is not the methods or the weapons that make them terrorists.

Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.


I call Hamas a splinter group in the sense of operating through suicide bombers and operating on a mandate to remove all Jews from the region because they are Jewws. In Hamas' sick and twisted version of Islam, that's every good muslim's duty. Did you not even look at the quotes I gave you, go read the whole charter and see for yourselft. That they managed to get a political mandate just makes them all the worse. The extremists in the world need to be marginalized, not dignified by negotiating with them. I'd say negotiating with Fatah and refusing to recognize Hamas until they change their mandate is the proper course.


It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.


And few political struggles with extremists have been resolved through negotiating, that's why history is littered with assassinations, coups, and wars. I'd rather see negotiations with the reasonable elements than lending any strength or dignity to extremists.


Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.


Now your listening too closely to Hamas' propaganda. Hamas runs out of Syria, they are primarily an engine to stir retaliatory strikes from Israel. Syria provides the funding, training, and rockets so Hamas can attack Israeli civilians. Then the Hamas militants hide in civilian homes and mosques and wait to see if Israel will come after them. All the while Syria hopes for as many dead Palestinians as possible to rally more anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas lacks any real military strength to 'beat back' Israeli forces. Israel has always mantained a policy of short and quick military operations. The only goal they have is to defend their civilians from attack. Taking land is not a goal so there is no invasion for Hamas to even try to beat down.


Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


And what political steps are you proposing Palestinians have taken? Electing Hamas, seems to me to be making things worse and giving a mandate of more war and bloodshed, not less. For Israel's part, their political process has continued to encourage withdrawal from expanded settlements and encouraged the handover of land taken in previous wars over to the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.


I call Hamas a splinter group in the sense of operating through suicide bombers and operating on a mandate to remove all Jews from the region because they are Jewws. In Hamas' sick and twisted version of Islam, that's every good muslim's duty. Did you not even look at the quotes I gave you, go read the whole charter and see for yourselft. That they managed to get a political mandate just makes them all the worse. The extremists in the world need to be marginalized, not dignified by negotiating with them. I'd say negotiating with Fatah and refusing to recognize Hamas until they change their mandate is the proper course.


It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.


And few political struggles with extremists have been resolved through negotiating, that's why history is littered with assassinations, coups, and wars. I'd rather see negotiations with the reasonable elements than lending any strength or dignity to extremists.


Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.


Now your listening too closely to Hamas' propaganda. Hamas runs out of Syria, they are primarily an engine to stir retaliatory strikes from Israel. Syria provides the funding, training, and rockets so Hamas can attack Israeli civilians. Then the Hamas militants hide in civilian homes and mosques and wait to see if Israel will come after them. All the while Syria hopes for as many dead Palestinians as possible to rally more anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas lacks any real military strength to 'beat back' Israeli forces. Israel has always mantained a policy of short and quick military operations. The only goal they have is to defend their civilians from attack. Taking land is not a goal so there is no invasion for Hamas to even try to beat down.


Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


And what political steps are you proposing Palestinians have taken? Electing Hamas, seems to me to be making things worse and giving a mandate of more war and bloodshed, not less. For Israel's part, their political process has continued to encourage withdrawal from expanded settlements and encouraged the handover of land taken in previous wars over to the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.

Whether or not you agree with Hamas' political mandate this is the Palestinian people's democratic right, and they elected Hamas to power based on that mandate. Oppressed nations always vote in the hard liners, this is how it has always been, this is why Northern Ireland now has the two extremist political parties sharing power.

It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.

There will never be peace with borders and checkpoints, boundary dissolution *is* the route to peace.

Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.

There is peace in Northern Ireland even though one of the sharing parties refuses to recognise the North of Ireland as British. This is a stable, tenable, peaceful political position with democratic support. Just as the British forces pulled out of the North of Ireland when this was achieved, so should Isreal have pulled out of Palestine when Hamas was elected- but they did not, and they continue to invade that country.

Many political charters around the world use strong extremist language, this is the way of the world, this is how democracy works, this is what political stability is all about.

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
The problem with your analogy is that Hamas IS the rogue splinter group. Here are some quotes from it's own founding charter:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
"Leaving the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators."

Once again, if you want to go back to Israel's declaration of independence I don't think it's needed to go find any quotes from Arab nations about wiping anyone off the map. The formerly Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Jordan and Exgypt sent nazi trained armies against Israel to destroy it, urging the Palestinian people to flee and return a few days later after the presumed victory. When Israel managed to win, the mess we see today began in full. The Arab nations failed to provide for the Palestinian people they'd encouraged to flee, and Israel was stuck with serious security problems with letting everyone simply return. The constant run of wars since has shown those security concerns to be undeniably valid.

A political solution would be great, and your right in spirit about negotiating with moderates to remove borders. The 2 problems are that Hamas is not the moderate group to negotiate with until it recognizes Israel's right to exist, and that surrounding Arab nations like Iran and Syria keep encouraging the rogue extremists with funding, training and weapons.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
The attacks are in response to Isreali oppression just as Irish Republican attacks in the 70s were in response to British oppression.

The longer the oppression exists, the less grip Hamas will have over splinter groups just as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army has no control over rogue elements and splinter groups.

Arab nations did not say they wanted to wipe Isreal off the map, they refused to recognise its sovereignty and there are political and historical reasons for this. This is a quote also attributed to Ahmadinejad as well, it is incorrect and is bandied around in American media all the time. Neither Iran nor any Arab nation has claimed to want to attack Isreal or wipe it off the map.

Removing borders will not stop splinter groups attacking Isreal, but doing it in conjunction with a political process with Hamas WILL, just as it has in Ireland.


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
If you want to go back to 1948 then you need to blame the Arab nations for abandoning the Palestinian people when they bid to wipe Israel out upon declaring it's independence.

The settlement policy of territory outside the '68 borders is criminal. But so are Syrian and Iranian rockets being launched by Hamas against Isreali civilians. Comparing atrocities though doesn't fix anything.

Despite knowing that removing the borders and checkpoints would create much good will, Israel can't ignore that Hamas agents would also take advantage of that to launch rockets into Jerusalem. When an Israeli checkpoint keeps a suicide bomber out, and saves a 14 year-old life, it is doing something good.

We call this "folk dancing" in Northern Ireland.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/26/10234/1725/937/484182

- Associated Press, 3/17/08

"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver....There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

"I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

"[S]he evoked foreign battlefields, recalling a trip to Bosnia as first lady, when the welcoming ceremony ‘had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.’ She said she had traveled to more than 80 countries and was ‘on the front lines’ as the United States made peace in Bosnia and Northern Ireland and helped save refugees from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo."

"I was the first, you know, high-profile American to go into Bosnia after the peace accords were signed because we wanted to show that the United States was 100 percent behind the agreement. We wanted to make it clear to the Bosnians of all backgrounds. Plus we wanted to thank our American military and our allies for a great job. So, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don’t remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac."

" She should have said she misspoke the second time she was asked, but give me a break, somebody get her on something substantive."

If the premise of your campaign is that your duties as first lady helped to make you the candidate of experience, then this kind of resume padding is important. Keep in mind that this is part of a pattern. She also exaggerated her role in Northern Ireland.

It's also important to remember that the bigger part of this screw up came in prepared remarks. So, this wasn't just said off the cuff (although she repeated her lies later while speaking extemporaneously).

I guess my take is that just because these criticisms aren't about any esoteric and wonkish details of her policies doesn't mean they aren't substantive. Rather, they go right to the center of what she's made the foundation of her campaign.

Congrats.

Ease up on pushing Ireland with the British Isles. I mean Northern Ireland just solved its beef with the UK lets not get it all started again

>> ^moodonia:
The Thrills are not British


agreed, and indeed. British is for "Citizen of the British empire (which we dont have anymore) and being part of Great Britain. Ireland isn't part of that. Irish, are Irish. Northern Ireland is complicated.

whilst, as the wiki puts it, "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland (also described as the Republic of Ireland in cases of ambiguity)."

British is not for the islands and archipelago, but the citizenship of one of thoes two soverign thingys.

and there you have it all twisted up, which ilustraights the point

UK= United Kingdom :> "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the U.K., or Britain)

Or Great Britain or GB.

England, is a part of the UK.
So is Wales.
So is Scotland.
England, in no way, and never has, included scotland as part of it.

It would be like reclasifying Californian authors as Texan authors because the people needing to look up the Californian authors had never heard of California and had assumed they were all Texans.

Or doing it the other way around, because so few Texans were literate that the number of authors was tiny and didnt warrant its own category.

This any clearer? Need your own map?

Maybe Miss South Carolina was working at the "Library of Congress" at the time, or perhaps their classification system was so bad, they couldn't find their own maps. Or maybe their maps were burnt, as being heretical, for claiming there existed places outside th borders of the USA.

AeroMechanical:

So, the idea is that everyone would get along better and the world would be a happy place if everyone were Christian. That's probably true in a way, but any other religion would do in it's place.

actually, if we look at Northern Ireland and Iraq, we see cases of people killing each other for following the wrong sub-sect of the same religion. This is a routine phenomenon.

I found a source.

October 16, 2001 - New York Times

U.S. Sent Guns to bin Laden in 1980s

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a decade ago, the U.S. government sent 25 high-powered
sniper rifles to a group of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan that included Osama bin Laden, according to
court testimony and the guns' maker.

The rifles, made by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. of Murfreesboro, Tenn., and paid for by the
government, were shipped during the collaboration between the United States and Muslims then
fighting to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

Experts doubt the weapons could still be used, but the transaction further accentuates how Americans
are fighting an enemy that U.S. officials once supported and liberally armed.

In a trial early this year of suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Essam Al-Ridi,
identified as a former pilot for bin Laden, said he shipped the weapons in 1989 to Sheik Abdallah
Azzam, bin Laden's ideological mentor. The weapons had range-finding equipment and night-vision
scopes.

During the late 1980s, the United States supplied arms worth $500 million a year to anti-Soviet
fighters including Afghanistan's current Taliban rulers, bin Laden and others. The supplies included a
range of weapons from small arms to shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Al-Ridi, an American citizen born in Egypt, testified that Azzam liked the rifles because they could be
``carried by individuals so it's made in such a way where you could have a heavy cannon but mobile
by an individual.''

While in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Al-Ridi said he saw bin Laden several times with Azzam.

Ronnie Barrett, president of Barrett Firearms, likened sale of the .50-caliber armor-piercing rifles to
the supply of the Stinger surface-to-air missiles given to anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan.

``Barrett rifles were picked up by U.S. government trucks, shipped to U.S. government bases and
shipped to those Afghan freedom fighters,'' Barrett said.

The sale was publicized by the Violence Policy Center, gun-control advocates who want for more
restrictions on the sale of high-powered weapons such as the specialized Barrett exports.

``These .50-caliber sniper rifles are ideal tools for terror and assassination,'' VPC analyst Tom Diaz said.

Firearms expert Charles Cutshaw of Jane's Information Group said he was more worried about the
Stingers than long-range sniper rifles.

``It seems to me that there are easier ways for a terrorist to get at a high-value target than this,''
Cutshaw said. ``If they wanted to bring down an aircraft, the best way would be to bring it down with
a Stinger.'' Guerrillas using Stingers were credited with shooting down more than 270 Soviet aircraft.

Cutshaw said the sniper rifles are ``sort of overkill'' for shooting people; more appropriate targets
would be vehicles or fuel tanks. But the Irish Republican Army used the weapon to kill 10 British
soldiers and policemen patrolling the Northern Ireland border in the 1990s.

The rifles could be used only with U.S.-made ammunition, but such ammunition can be obtained in
neighboring Pakistan, Cutshaw said.

The Barrett rifles sold for $5,000 to $6,000 each, and both Barrett and Cutshaw had doubts they
would still work due to dust and a lack of spare parts.

But the rifles could be functional if they have been kept in storage since the purchase, Barrett said.
The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan months after the rifles were sold.

``If it's not used, it could work,'' Barrett said. ``Age will not bother the gun, just usage.''

---

So Bin laden may have received weapons from the CIA in 1989. But his first attack on US targets was in 1992. He was hardly notorious in 1989.

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------